how does theosis compare to catholic and protestant ideas of justification/sanctification?

it seems like on almost every issue, the orthodox church is better than the catholic church and the west. i'm training my brain to think less like a roman. western thought has always seemed strained and eastern more natural. so i'm looking for some food for thought on this topic, too, if any.

here is how ive described catholics v protestants, in other forums.

"it seems if you try to do justice to both sides, it's merely an academic question. both sides say you need to rely on jesus and do good, and that grace is the ultimate reason any of us escape death. neither side really gets into the calculus of how much or the rate of advancement in good works one must do. it's all a legal matter. catholics say any good works one does can be counted as applying to the justification one receives, and Jesus is the reason that allows this and picks up any slack in justification that you fall short on. protestants say all justification is from jesus, and any advance in good works merely adds to ones 'sanctification'. catholics also use the word sanctifacation but it goes hand in hand with the word justification.

you can find quotes for each side in the bible. most starkly you have romans by paul who said a person is justified apart from their works, and james says a person is justified with their works. if you dont want to take this as a contradiction, you have to say you could read either passage in its alterantive spin too. i dont see how you can say one side is more right than the other.

of course jesus didn't get legalistic. to the catholics point, he stressed being good, but he also stressed having faith in him. so this is a wash as to which side is better too.

i like to think about the bigger picture. we are loved unconditionally without any work of our own, but we also have to do good if we are actually christian. the rest is just details. "

I think what you're really asking about is more likely synergeia. As for your long self-quote, I think it could use some clarification to prove its aptness to the topic. Were you trying to reconcile Catholic and Evangelical dogmas? Or is this a statement of your own belief?

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

you can find quotes for each side in the bible. most starkly you have romans by paul who said a person is justified apart from their works, and james says a person is justified with their works. if you dont want to take this as a contradiction, you have to say you could read either passage in its alterantive spin too. i dont see how you can say one side is more right than the other.

I think a lot of times the Orthodox response is that they're really talking about two different kinds of works. Paul is talking about the "works of the Law" which was something of a technical term in Second Temple thought- mostly referring to the Jewish rituals that set them apart from the Gentiles (especially circumcision, for Paul).

James, on the other hand, is referring to more what we think of as "good works," charity, purity, etc.

So, there's no conflict since they are using different different meanings of the same word.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

you can find quotes for each side in the bible. most starkly you have romans by paul who said a person is justified apart from their works, and james says a person is justified with their works. if you dont want to take this as a contradiction, you have to say you could read either passage in its alterantive spin too. i dont see how you can say one side is more right than the other.

I think a lot of times the Orthodox response is that they're really talking about two different kinds of works. Paul is talking about the "works of the Law" which was something of a technical term in Second Temple thought- mostly referring to the Jewish rituals that set them apart from the Gentiles (especially circumcision, for Paul).

James, on the other hand, is referring to more what we think of as "good works," charity, purity, etc.

So, there's no conflict since they are using different different meanings of the same word.

The Apostle even says (and this is in keeping with his teaching everywhere, as you've touched on) that we were created for and foreordained (προητοίμασεν) to good works (ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς: noble activities); so a doctrine of good works is plainly nonnegotiable and inseparable from Christianity. The Protestant and neo-Catholic horror of it is just as plainly not of Christ.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

you can find quotes for each side in the bible. most starkly you have romans by paul who said a person is justified apart from their works, and james says a person is justified with their works. if you dont want to take this as a contradiction, you have to say you could read either passage in its alterantive spin too. i dont see how you can say one side is more right than the other.

I think a lot of times the Orthodox response is that they're really talking about two different kinds of works. Paul is talking about the "works of the Law" which was something of a technical term in Second Temple thought- mostly referring to the Jewish rituals that set them apart from the Gentiles (especially circumcision, for Paul).

James, on the other hand, is referring to more what we think of as "good works," charity, purity, etc.

So, there's no conflict since they are using different different meanings of the same word.

The Apostle even says (and this is in keeping with his teaching everywhere, as you've touched on) that we were created for and foreordained (προητοίμασεν) to good works (ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς: noble activities); so a doctrine of good works is plainly nonnegotiable and inseparable from Christianity. The Protestant and neo-Catholic horror of it is just as plainly not of Christ.

Yeah. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is also important here.

I think people's issues with it all come from trying to parse things too finely.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

you can find quotes for each side in the bible. most starkly you have romans by paul who said a person is justified apart from their works, and james says a person is justified with their works. if you dont want to take this as a contradiction, you have to say you could read either passage in its alterantive spin too. i dont see how you can say one side is more right than the other.

I think a lot of times the Orthodox response is that they're really talking about two different kinds of works. Paul is talking about the "works of the Law" which was something of a technical term in Second Temple thought- mostly referring to the Jewish rituals that set them apart from the Gentiles (especially circumcision, for Paul).

James, on the other hand, is referring to more what we think of as "good works," charity, purity, etc.

So, there's no conflict since they are using different different meanings of the same word.

The Apostle even says (and this is in keeping with his teaching everywhere, as you've touched on) that we were created for and foreordained (προητοίμασεν) to good works (ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς: noble activities); so a doctrine of good works is plainly nonnegotiable and inseparable from Christianity. The Protestant and neo-Catholic horror of it is just as plainly not of Christ.

Yeah. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is also important here.

I think people's issues with it all come from trying to parse things too finely.

And I think the historical record will show it sprang, with Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and anabaptism, from a Second Humanist disdain of any authority, duty, or exercise not internal to their own minds. After Erasmus and Luther and Grebel, the following centuries of nattering on these subjects amounts to little more than heirs squabbling over scraps they neither earned nor understand.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

It is about uncreated grace vs created grace, experiencing God vs philosophizing about Him.

Yeah, not really helpful in this context, I think.

The question was: how does theosis compare to catholic and protestant ideas of justification/sanctification?

In western protestant/catholic theology grace is said to be created, you are infused with it and they call this "justification" or "sanctification" but if that grace is created then theosis is not possible.

It is about uncreated grace vs created grace, experiencing God vs philosophizing about Him.

Yeah, not really helpful in this context, I think.

The question was: how does theosis compare to catholic and protestant ideas of justification/sanctification?

In western protestant/catholic theology grace is said to be created, you are infused with it and they call this "justification" or "sanctification" but if that grace is created then theosis is not possible.

So their very starting point is wrong.

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

how does theosis compare to catholic and protestant ideas of justification/sanctification?

I did want to point out that, practically-speaking, in low-church Protestant thinking "justification" is the equivalent of a get-out-of-jail-free card. "The blood covers," as they say, and the Father does not see our sinning. Nothing could be more foreign to our concept of theosis, which is gradual but observable transformation of the Christian nature from human to divine.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

how does theosis compare to catholic and protestant ideas of justification/sanctification?

I did want to point out that, practically-speaking, in low-church Protestant thinking "justification" is the equivalent of a get-out-of-jail-free card. "The blood covers," as they say, and the Father does not see our sinning. Nothing could be more foreign to our concept of theosis, which is gradual but observable transformation of the Christian nature from human to divine.

In terms of someone like Zane Hodges, yes. Not as much in Lordship Salvation circles, though. God forgives the sins you commit. But if you commit grave sin habitually, then you were never justified in the first place.

So, for somebody like John "Hard to Believe" MacArthur the situation on the ground seems identical to the situation for a Catholic or an Orthodox. The only difference I guess would be that the fallen Protestant has to "start all over" and hope it's real justification this time (I must have "given my life to Jesus" at least 10 times over the years), while the Orthodox can just go to confession.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

you can find quotes for each side in the bible. most starkly you have romans by paul who said a person is justified apart from their works, and james says a person is justified with their works. if you dont want to take this as a contradiction, you have to say you could read either passage in its alterantive spin too. i dont see how you can say one side is more right than the other.

I think a lot of times the Orthodox response is that they're really talking about two different kinds of works. Paul is talking about the "works of the Law" which was something of a technical term in Second Temple thought- mostly referring to the Jewish rituals that set them apart from the Gentiles (especially circumcision, for Paul).

James, on the other hand, is referring to more what we think of as "good works," charity, purity, etc.

So, there's no conflict since they are using different different meanings of the same word.

While the Apostle gets into some very detailed and sophisticated arguments for his Jewish readers at the time, in the letter to the Romans and in the letter to the Hebrews, for us outsiders taking the long view it's probably safe enough to characterize the bulk of it as "Judaism won't save you." A simple enough message, unless one grew up in Judaizing and otherwise confused low-church Protestant circles and feels thereby compelled to scour these passages for supposed arcanities of Christian theology.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

you can find quotes for each side in the bible. most starkly you have romans by paul who said a person is justified apart from their works, and james says a person is justified with their works. if you dont want to take this as a contradiction, you have to say you could read either passage in its alterantive spin too. i dont see how you can say one side is more right than the other.

I think a lot of times the Orthodox response is that they're really talking about two different kinds of works. Paul is talking about the "works of the Law" which was something of a technical term in Second Temple thought- mostly referring to the Jewish rituals that set them apart from the Gentiles (especially circumcision, for Paul).

James, on the other hand, is referring to more what we think of as "good works," charity, purity, etc.

So, there's no conflict since they are using different different meanings of the same word.

While the Apostle gets into some very detailed and sophisticated arguments for his Jewish readers at the time, in the letter to the Romans and in the letter to the Hebrews, for us outsiders taking the long view it's probably safe enough to characterize the bulk of it as "Judaism won't save you." A simple enough message, unless one grew up in Judaizing and otherwise confused low-church Protestant circles and feels thereby compelled to scour these passages for supposed arcanities of Christian theology.

Well that and the apparent tension between Romans 8:35-39 and the things we all do that we sense should make God hate and abandon us (and fear of any sense of having "earned" one's salvation).

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

how does theosis compare to catholic and protestant ideas of justification/sanctification?

it seems like on almost every issue, the orthodox church is better than the catholic church and the west. i'm training my brain to think less like a roman. western thought has always seemed strained and eastern more natural. so i'm looking for some food for thought on this topic, too, if any.

here is how ive described catholics v protestants, in other forums.

"it seems if you try to do justice to both sides, it's merely an academic question. both sides say you need to rely on jesus and do good, and that grace is the ultimate reason any of us escape death. neither side really gets into the calculus of how much or the rate of advancement in good works one must do. it's all a legal matter. catholics say any good works one does can be counted as applying to the justification one receives, and Jesus is the reason that allows this and picks up any slack in justification that you fall short on. protestants say all justification is from jesus, and any advance in good works merely adds to ones 'sanctification'. catholics also use the word sanctifacation but it goes hand in hand with the word justification.

you can find quotes for each side in the bible. most starkly you have romans by paul who said a person is justified apart from their works, and james says a person is justified with their works. if you dont want to take this as a contradiction, you have to say you could read either passage in its alterantive spin too. i dont see how you can say one side is more right than the other.

of course jesus didn't get legalistic. to the catholics point, he stressed being good, but he also stressed having faith in him. so this is a wash as to which side is better too.

i like to think about the bigger picture. we are loved unconditionally without any work of our own, but we also have to do good if we are actually christian. the rest is just details. "

The Eastern Church tends towards a therapeutic model which sees sin as illness, while the Western Church tends towards a juridical model seeing sin as moral failure. This all started with St Augustine's theology gaining presidents over St John Cassians. Which is very Orthodox.

you can find quotes for each side in the bible. most starkly you have romans by paul who said a person is justified apart from their works, and james says a person is justified with their works. if you dont want to take this as a contradiction, you have to say you could read either passage in its alterantive spin too. i dont see how you can say one side is more right than the other.

I think a lot of times the Orthodox response is that they're really talking about two different kinds of works. Paul is talking about the "works of the Law" which was something of a technical term in Second Temple thought- mostly referring to the Jewish rituals that set them apart from the Gentiles (especially circumcision, for Paul).

James, on the other hand, is referring to more what we think of as "good works," charity, purity, etc.

So, there's no conflict since they are using different different meanings of the same word.

While the Apostle gets into some very detailed and sophisticated arguments for his Jewish readers at the time, in the letter to the Romans and in the letter to the Hebrews, for us outsiders taking the long view it's probably safe enough to characterize the bulk of it as "Judaism won't save you." A simple enough message, unless one grew up in Judaizing and otherwise confused low-church Protestant circles and feels thereby compelled to scour these passages for supposed arcanities of Christian theology.

Well that and the apparent tension between Romans 8:35-39 and the things we all do that we sense should make God hate and abandon us (and fear of any sense of having "earned" one's salvation).

I'm not saying there's nothing for the "gentile" to learn from St. Paul's passages that deeply discuss the Law. What I am trying to do is simply refute the Reformed heresy that the Law in these passages is any good deed or practice. It's not -- it's Judaism. Are there parallels between the fallen Jewish experience and our own? As fellow humans, yes. As legal and theological milieus, God forbid. Christ came to give us something fundamentally new, and what this is the Evangelists and Apostles discuss at length in many passages that have no reference to Judaism, and that, conversely, often do speak most positively in terms of laws and deeds.

« Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 09:18:07 PM by Porter ODoran »

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

No it doesnt, there is no created grace, i have heard some latin apolagetics on how it refers, to the instance and not to the substance, and i can tell this is a very poor attempt to excuse to their cocadoxy.

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

No it doesnt, there is no created grace, i have heard some latin apolagetics on how it refers, to the instance and not to the substance, and i can tell this is a very poor attempt to excuse to their cocadoxy.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

No it doesnt, there is no created grace, i have heard some latin apolagetics on how it refers, to the instance and not to the substance, and i can tell this is a very poor attempt to excuse to their cocadoxy.

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

No it doesnt, there is no created grace, i have heard some latin apolagetics on how it refers, to the instance and not to the substance, and i can tell this is a very poor attempt to excuse to their cocadoxy.

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

No it doesnt, there is no created grace, i have heard some latin apolagetics on how it refers, to the instance and not to the substance, and i can tell this is a very poor attempt to excuse to their cocadoxy.

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

No it doesnt, there is no created grace, i have heard some latin apolagetics on how it refers, to the instance and not to the substance, and i can tell this is a very poor attempt to excuse to their cocadoxy.

How can you "tell?"

Fill in le blank. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new _________"

Your abuse of scripture leads to arianism.

I can see that could be a potential danger when trying to apply this sort of logic to the Incarnation, yes. But I'm not sure it absolutely must lead there.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

No it doesnt, there is no created grace, i have heard some latin apolagetics on how it refers, to the instance and not to the substance, and i can tell this is a very poor attempt to excuse to their cocadoxy.

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

No it doesnt, there is no created grace, i have heard some latin apolagetics on how it refers, to the instance and not to the substance, and i can tell this is a very poor attempt to excuse to their cocadoxy.

How can you "tell?"

Fill in le blank. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new _________"

Your abuse of scripture leads to arianism.

I can see that could be a potential danger when trying to apply this sort of logic to the Incarnation, yes. But I'm not sure it absolutely must lead there.

Grace is two fold in that. What ever is done in the body is also being lived out in the spirit. The sacriments are an outward expression of whats happening internally. Lets use marriage as an example. The alter is the outward expression of what the couple feels at the time of there bond. They are in love, want to be in each others company and these are uncreated aspects of the relationship. If that didn't exist the sacriment or created grace is really void.

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

No it doesnt, there is no created grace, i have heard some latin apolagetics on how it refers, to the instance and not to the substance, and i can tell this is a very poor attempt to excuse to their cocadoxy.

Depends on how you define "created grace" doesn't? You could get into a rabbit hole about exactly what it means to commune with God, the finer points of the Essence/Energy distinction, etc. It just seemed like Western-bashing triumphalism that won't shed any light on the OP's question.

No it doesnt, there is no created grace, i have heard some latin apolagetics on how it refers, to the instance and not to the substance, and i can tell this is a very poor attempt to excuse to their cocadoxy.

How can you "tell?"

Fill in le blank. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new _________"

Your abuse of scripture leads to arianism.

I can see that could be a potential danger when trying to apply this sort of logic to the Incarnation, yes. But I'm not sure it absolutely must lead there.

Grace is two fold in that. What ever is done in the body is also being lived out in the spirit. The sacriments are an outward expression of whats happening internally. Lets use marriage as an example. The alter is the outward expression of what the couple feels at the time of there bond. They are in love, want to be in each others company and these are uncreated aspects of the relationship. If that didn't exist the sacriment or created grace is really void.

Agreed. It doesn't make sense to me to say that grace is only uncreated. But at the same time, I don't think one can deny that there is a created aspect to it when it meets created beings like us.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

I don't think one can deny that there is a created aspect to it when it meets created beings like us.

uncreated also happens to mean without begining in creation/time. So when latin apologist say that the uncreated grace have a begining in time, they may think they are doing good job at answering our criticism but in reallity what they say is non sense.

I don't think one can deny that there is a created aspect to it when it meets created beings like us.

uncreated also happens to mean without begining in creation/time. So when latin apologist say that the uncreated grace have a begining in time, they may think they are doing good job at answering our criticism but in reallity what they say is non sense.

I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but I'll just say that any acts of God only have a "beginning" relative to our point of view. It's kind of pointless to even discuss in those terms imo.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.